Reposted verbatim from Julian Gillespie, LLB, BJuris:

“to paraphrase a line on the devil

.. the greatest trick Pfizer and Moderna ever pulled was to convince the world their products don’t enter the nucleus, and alter chromosomal DNA, forever

With a heavy heart I can now share with you the new legal proceedings we launched on 6 July, naming Pfizer and Moderna as the Defendants .. our planet’s new IG Farbens producing a more subtle Zyklon B (said with respect to those affected by the latter).

A more detailed overview is further down the page .. the attached Letters of Demand we sent to Pfizer, Moderna, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, and the TGA, contain an abundance of references Re. the long established science surrounding the real dangers these transfection products were always known to pose to humanity.

In a nutshell the LNP-modRNA complexes produced by Pfizer and Moderna satisfy Australian legal definitions for being properly deemed Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMOs. Almost identical legal definitions are found in many other countries, including the EU. Synthetic and natural RNA has over four decades of science acknowledging how easily it can integrate with genomic DNA.

The subsequent discovery by Kevin McKernan of grossly excessive synthetic DNA contamination in the vials of both companies only makes a very bad situation much worse, as that modDNA also satisfies the same legal definitions for being yet another form of GMO, while possessing superior traits for effectively undergoing genomic integration, and DNA dysregulation.

In Australia it is a serious criminal offence to ‘deal’ with GMOs without a GMO licence first being granted by the OGTR.

Neither Pfizer nor Moderna knocked on the door of the OGTR, and our OGTR failed to pull them up before they went knocking on the door of the TGA for provisional approval.

.. a gross and heinous failure by Australia’s Gene Technology Regulator, assisted by the Secretary of Health not pausing to ask whether these drugs were not always meant to be first regulated by the OGTR, prior to being possibly cleared to proceed to apply for provisional approval with the TGA.

This utter failure by GMO regulators occurred about the globe when the C19 drugs were hustled to the front of approval queues .. where now thanks to their transparent failures we can thank them for ensuring the Human Genome has been irreparably poisoned

.. Welcome to Humanity’s new Transgenic Era

In the coming week we will be seeking urgent hearing dates for getting the Federal Court to understand and acknowledge the evidence, and requesting Injunctions against Pfizer and Moderna preventing them from any further ‘dealings’ with their products in this country, which will effectively stop any further shots being administered.

if we can achieve that, we can then start asking the real questions of what Brendan Murphy and his army of highly paid PhDs knew when Pfizer and Moderna first ‘came a knockin’, while also asking what Australia’s Gene Technology Regulator, Raj Buhla, was doing when these C19 turned up seeking approvals, where there has been two decades of established science showing these transfection products being perfectly suited for targeting and altering genomes .. there is no room for pleas of ignorance .. the actions of Murphy and Buhla amount to an intentional dereliction of duty rising to some form of criminal culpability. Please share far and wide .. and for the international readers here, may I suggest you get some of your local legal minds looking into this outrageous scandal .. you will find your GMO legislation was also ignored, too

Together with Katie Ashby-Koppens and Peter Fam, I extend our sincere thanks and gratitude to the several significant donors who have financed this matter to date .. and thanks to Dr Julian Fidge for agreeing to become the solitary Applicant for the proceedings.

Australian Federal Court proceedings brought under the Gene Technology Act 2000

Case File Number: VID510/2023 Julian Fidge v. Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd & Anor

Case Summary:

An injunction is sought against Pfizer and Moderna on the basis that they have failed to apply for the necessary licences to deal with Genetically Modified Organisms in Australia, pursuant to the Gene Technology Act 2000 (GT Act).

It is alleged that Pfizer and Moderna’s Covid-19 vaccines (both monovalent and bivalent products (C-19 Products)) satisfy the Australian legal definitions for being deemed Genetically Modified Organisms, pursuant to section 10 of the GT Act.

Namely, the C-19 Products are, or contain, GMOs as:

1. Synthetic LNP-modRNA complexes; and 
2. Synthetic LNP-modDNA complexes found as excessive contamination (recently discovered).

The relevant definitions are applied in the context of the C-19 Products containing ‘LNP-modRNA complexes’.

Relevantly, the ‘LNP-modRNA complexes’ fulfil the definition of organism, namely:

“organism” means any biological entity that is:

(a)  viable; or

(b)  capable of reproduction; or

  (c)  capable of transferring genetic material. 

(emphasis added)

First, the LNP-modRNA complexes fulfil being ‘any biological entity’.

Secondly, the LNP-modRNA complexes do and are ‘capable of transferring genetic material’, insofar that the LNP encapsulating the modRNA bio-distributes throughout the human body, and directly assists to transfer (transfect) the modRNA across cell membranes and into the cytoplasm of cells of all organ types and classes, including the brain, heart, kidneys, liver, testes, ovaries, and unborn children. This encapsulation, transport, and transfection using LNPs involves the physical ‘transferring of genetic material’ throughout the body of recipients.

Having satisfied the above, it then follows, a:

“genetically modified organism” means:

(a)  an organism that has been modified by gene technology;

Where:

“gene technology” means any technique for the modification of genes or other genetic material.

The degree of genetic modifications involved in the creation of the modRNA is beyond question and well settled. The finer details of the genetic modifications involved are a matter of evidence to be presented and explained to the court.

The above definitions are not controversial and can be found under European Union legislation, and similar GMO legislation in place in many other countries.

Both Pfizer and Moderna have long been aware of these legal definitions but chose to ignore them when seeking to introduce their C-19 Products to the Australian market.

AstraZeneca on the other hand did not seek to avoid its legal obligations and properly sought a GMO License (DIR 180) from the Australian Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) prior to seeking provisional approval from the Australian TGA.

‘Dealing’ with a GMO in Australia without a licence is a Serious Criminal Offence: see section 32, section 33, and section 38 of the GT Act. Most other jurisdictions have similar legislation.

Pfizer and Moderna in failing to obtain GMO Licences in Australia prior to seeking provisional approval from the TGA for their C-19 Products, means both companies continue to commit the Serious Criminal Offences described above. The grant of provisional approval by the TGA never cured these ongoing Serious Criminal Offences.

Indeed the TGA should have first consulted with the OGTR (pursuant to section 30C Therapeutic Goods Act 1989) about the LNP-modRNA complexes before granting provisional approval. The TGA was instead willfully blind to this issue.

In reply to correspondence raising concerns about the C-19 Products being GMOs, the OGTR has stated that it:

“has never regulated those vaccines, or been required to. Accordingly the GTTAC has never considered or advised OGTR with respect to them.”

This position is untenable and ignores the science that was provided to the OGTR by an Australian law firm in 2022 seeking to inform the OGTR and its advisory body, the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee (GTTAC), showing specifically the LNP-modRNA complexes are involved in:

Nuclear localisation (entry into the nucleus): Sattar et al 2022.

Once within the nucleus, reverse-transcription with chromosomal DNA: Alden et al 2022.

Reverse-transcription involving genomic integration and inheritance in offspring: Qin et al 2022.

The above papers demonstrate modes of action consistent with the worst possible threats to genomic (natural) DNA that GMO legislation is meant to protect the public from being exposed to.

Both Pfizer and Moderna due to their declared expertise, at law, are understood to have known all of the above.

In the event either company seeks to now assert that it was an oversight, is no excuse. At criminal law both companies have also been ‘reckless’ and/or ‘negligent’ about properly investigating and verifying the above legal definitions, and the subsequent peer reviewed papers confirming the destructive effects of their products on the human genome. Where recklessness and/or negligence is shown in experts in a field, those experts are deemed to have always possessed ‘knowledge’ of their conduct.

In short, Pfizer and Moderna always knew their C-19 Products are, or contain, Genetically Modified Organisms.

DNA Contamination

Compounding the above is the recent discovery by genomics expert Kevin McKernan of dangerously excessive DNA cell-substrate contamination. This discovery has now been independently verified by other internationally recognised laboratories using different vials, evidencing gross, pre-existing, and continuing global supply contamination by Pfizer and Moderna.

The synthetic DNA (modDNA) contamination is anywhere between 18-70 times above legal limits.

However, this contamination is much worse than contemplated by outdated regulations, as the modDNA is also encapsulated in LNPs, thus ensuring bio-distribution throughout human bodies, and transfection into cells of all major types of organs, including the brain, heart, ovaries, testes, liver, spleen, eyes, and unborn children.

For the purposes of the GT Act, this excessive contamination also fulfils the legal definitions for being correctly deemed Genetically Modified Organisms, and perhaps the worst type of GMO, as genomic integration with chromosomal DNA does not require reverse-transcription, and some of this modDNA (by Pfizer) has the opportunity of becoming ‘replication competent’ (self replicating) in certain persons known to be infected with SV40 related viruses.

Perversely, and as a strict matter of law, both Pfizer and Moderna were/are required to possess GMO Licences to ‘deal’ with their LNP-modDNA contamination in Australia, though any organisation responsible for such licensure (the OGTR in this instance) would never allow any product into their country that contains this form of GMO contamination. This form of GMO contamination alters the course of humanity, and what it means to be human.

By these proceedings the Applicant (Dr Julian Fidge) together with the legal team who discovered and created the proceedings (Julian Gillespie and Katie Ashby-Koppens), now seek to present the above facts to the court.

In the event the court follows and accepts the evidence that the C-19 products contain GMOs, and as a consequence both Pfizer and Moderna are seen to be committing ongoing Serious Criminal Offences by dealing with GMOs in Australia without a licence, the court should find itself compelled to issue an Injunction under section 147 preventing Pfizer and Moderna from any further dealings in Australia, which outcome would also require the halt of any further use of the Pfizer and Moderna C-19 products in Australia.

The below documents begin to further detail the above facts:

1. Letter to the Registrar, Federal Court of Australia, Re Urgency (sealed)
2. Originating Application (sealed – to be amended to correct paragraph 4(c) and (d) to reference instead ‘4.a.i. – iii. and 4.b.i. – ii’ NOT ‘5.a.i. – iii. And 5.b.i. – ii’)
3. Letter of Demand, Pfizer – served 4 July 2023 (response – reject GMO allegations – failed to address modDNA contamination)
4. Letter of Demand, Moderna – served 4 July 2023 (no response/reply: correction required to footnote 10, should read ‘Supra n 12 in paragraph 23’)
5. Letter of Demand, TGA – delivered 4 July 2023 (no response/reply; correction required to paragraph 17(a)(ii), should read ‘on or about 21 December 2022’)
6. Letter of Demand, OGTR – delivered 4 July 2023 (no response/reply)”

I can only show a screen shot of the five attached documents sent from PJ O’Brien & Associates 185 Corlette Street The Junction NSW 2291.

The highlighted Moderna demand letter starts thus:

Onwards

************

Source